After the focus of the study is identified. The next step is to identify the issues surrounding the focus of study. It must be specific and current. It could be either based on real industry issues that interest/motivate you to conduct this research or literature, such as journal article, magazine, newspaper, news, etc. 

Support from current literature (published within 3 years back) is required.  

The research issue is similar of the symptoms of a disease. From the symptom, a medical doctor will identify the research problem (root cause). Therefore scrutinizing the current issues is critical for the identification of problem. 

Interesting – Necessary, but not sufficient. 

Embedded in theory – Isolated studies have little impact. 

Impactful – Important, leverage to change situation. 

Original – First/earliest, created personally. 

Feasible – Capable to be accomplished.

✔What is the issue(s) or problem(s)?

✔What controversy leads to the need for a study?

✔What concern(s) is being addressed behind the study?

✔Is there a sentence such as, “The problem being addressed in this study is…”?

Who will benefit from reading the study?

✔ Other researchers

✔ Practitioners

✔ Policy makers

✔ Special populations (e.g., parents, university students, etc.)

Can you study the problem?

✔ Do you have access to the research site?

✔ Do you have the time, resources, & skills to carry out the research?

Should you study the problem?

✔ Does it advance knowledge?

✔ Does it contribute to practice?

Will the study…

✔ Fill a gap or void in the existing literature?

✔ Replicate past studies but examine different participants & research sites?

✔ Extend past research or examine the topic more thoroughly?

✔ Contribute to society?

✔ Inform practice?

✔ Area being research.

✔ Pre-introduction about research problem or general context of problem. 

✔ Relevant history on the issue and previous studies on the issue. 

✔ Current issues surrounding the focus of study.

✔ Information–statistical data, statements, concerned from somebody (e.g., professionals, industries or government). 

✔ Motivation of doing research in the particular area.

Against this backdrop, the present study attempts to provide a more comprehensive examination of the antecedents and outcomes of customer engagement behavior in the airline BFPs. Building on multiple theories (i.e., U&G Theory and the stimulus-organism-response (S-O-R) framework) as well as the literature on branding, CSR and customer engagement, this study develops a research model to elucidate the interrelationships between perceived gratifications, brand evaluations, perceived CSR-brand fit, self-brand integration, customer engagement (behavior), loyalty and citizenship behavior. 

Specifically, this study investigates the simultaneous and interaction effects of prior perceptions of gratifications and prior brand evaluations on customers’ prior engagement with the BFPs and examines whether prior customer engagement has a “spillover” effect on their engagement behavior. Furthermore, a quasi-experimental study is conducted to test whether perceived CSR-brand fit acts as a “stimulus” for customer engagement behavior, with self-brand integration serving as a mediator variable. In addition, the impact of customer engagement behavior on customer loyalty and citizenship behaviors is also examined. 

The origin of lean manufacturing (LM) was established on the shop-floors of the Toyota Motor Corporation during 1970s (Shingo, 1981), under the names of Toyota Production System (TPS) or Just-in-Time (JIT) manufacturing (Taj, 2008). Papadopoulou and Özbayrak (2005) explained that the term “lean” was first coined by Krafcik (1988) to describe a production system that uses fewer resources compared to mass production. Due to the practices of LM, JIT, and TPS being about the same (Heizer and Render, 2008), these terms are often used interchangeably (Heizer and Render, 2008, Taj, 2008). According to Papadopoulou and Özbayrak (2005), LM is merely an Americanized version of the TPS or the JIT. The concept of LM is constantly evolving as well as experiencing expanding scope and focus (Papadopoulou and Özbayrak, 2005). Recently, the term “lean manufacturing” has become more prevalent, thus it is subsequently used in this study to encompass all the related practices.

Facts and figures have indicated that LM contributed significantly to the success of the Japanese and US companies during the last three decades. Even Krafcik (1989) suggested that high performance depends on creating a LM system. Nowadays, the concept of LM is transferred actively across countries and industries due to its global superiority in cost, quality, productivity, flexibility, and quick response (Schonberger, 2007).

Various studies concluded that LM has helped numerous companies to improve performance through waste elimination. At the operations level, several studies postulated that LM has become a powerful approach in escalating operations performance (OP) in terms of quality (Fullerton and Wempe, 2009, Shah and Ward, 2003), inventory minimization (Chong et al., 2001, Fullerton and McWatters, 2001), delivery (Ahmad et al., 2004, Ahmad et al., 2003), productivity (Fullerton and Wempe, 2009, Singh et al., 2010), and cost reduction (Cua et al., 2001, Hallgren and Olhager, 2009). Surprisingly, LM has also been recognized as a fantastic strategy to improve business performance (BP) in terms of profitability (Ahmad et al., 2003, Fullerton and Wempe, 2009), sales (Green and Inman, 2007, Kannan and Tan, 2005), and customer satisfaction (Green and Inman, 2007, Sakakibara et al., 1997). This condition remains a fundamental question; “how LM leads to the better BP?” While there is a growing number of anecdotal and empirical evidence in favor of LM in manufacturing environment, there has been almost no theory-building and methodologically rigorous research examining the link between LM, OP, and BP.

More importantly, much of the research had examined the impact of LM on performance in the developed countries, such as Japan, USA, UK, Germany, Italy, etc. Amoako-Gyampah and Gargeya (2001) suggested that not much attention had been paid to investigate the LM-performance relationships in the developing countries. The researchers believed that in order to obtain a clearer picture regarding the impact of LM practices on performance, investigations in the context of developing countries are substantially required. 

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the interrelationships between LM, OP, and BP in Indonesian manufacturing companies. Specifically, the extent of LM implementation is examined comprehensively by using the nine practices, whereas performance is assessed simultaneously in two levels; OP and BP. Finally, the role of OP in mediating the LM practices-BP relationship will be investigated.